This chapter examines the political foundation of the Province of Carolina. The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina was the central guiding document for the colony. It not only set forth the system ...
More

This chapter examines the political foundation of the Province of Carolina. The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina was the central guiding document for the colony. It not only set forth the system of government for the colony, but also prescribed its social structure, key elements of its economic system, and principles for the design of cities and their hinterlands. Subsequent “instructions” provided further detail on urban design. Planning for the colony was led by Anthony Ashley Cooper, later the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, who was assisted by John Locke. Ashley Cooper’s vision for the colony was influenced by an idealized interpretation of feudalistic Gothic society, reflections on the failure of the English Commonwealth, and the political philosopher James Harrington. Locke’s role in planning the colony has long been the subject of speculation, and this chapter adds a new perspective to that discussion.Less

Carolina : The First Planned Colony

Thomas D. Wilson

Published in print: 2016-03-01

This chapter examines the political foundation of the Province of Carolina. The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina was the central guiding document for the colony. It not only set forth the system of government for the colony, but also prescribed its social structure, key elements of its economic system, and principles for the design of cities and their hinterlands. Subsequent “instructions” provided further detail on urban design. Planning for the colony was led by Anthony Ashley Cooper, later the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, who was assisted by John Locke. Ashley Cooper’s vision for the colony was influenced by an idealized interpretation of feudalistic Gothic society, reflections on the failure of the English Commonwealth, and the political philosopher James Harrington. Locke’s role in planning the colony has long been the subject of speculation, and this chapter adds a new perspective to that discussion.

This chapter explores utopianism as a prominent facet of English settlement in North America, beginning with the quest for freedom of conscience in New England and Maryland. The later colonies of ...
More

This chapter explores utopianism as a prominent facet of English settlement in North America, beginning with the quest for freedom of conscience in New England and Maryland. The later colonies of Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Georgia had more refined utopian plans where political philosophy was integrated with economic planning and urban design. The detailed plan for Carolina set the standard for later urban planning while also creating insipient elements of an American political culture.Less

Prologue : America: A Blank Slate for English Utopianism

Thomas D. Wilson

Published in print: 2016-03-01

This chapter explores utopianism as a prominent facet of English settlement in North America, beginning with the quest for freedom of conscience in New England and Maryland. The later colonies of Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Georgia had more refined utopian plans where political philosophy was integrated with economic planning and urban design. The detailed plan for Carolina set the standard for later urban planning while also creating insipient elements of an American political culture.

This chapter examines the implementation of the Grand Model in the context of frontier realities. The Fundamental Constitutions provided for slavery in Carolina, but it did not envision the emergence ...
More

This chapter examines the implementation of the Grand Model in the context of frontier realities. The Fundamental Constitutions provided for slavery in Carolina, but it did not envision the emergence of a slave society (i.e., one in which the society is largely structured around an enslaved labor force). Colonists from Barbados brought slave society with them, and as they gained political power in Carolina they altered the social hierarchy and eliminated the ideal of reciprocity of benefits among social classes. A new model emerged that blended idealistic elements of the Grand Model with the existing model of Barbadian slave society. That model would become a template for development across the Deep South.Less

The Grand Model and Frontier Reality

Thomas D. Wilson

Published in print: 2016-03-01

This chapter examines the implementation of the Grand Model in the context of frontier realities. The Fundamental Constitutions provided for slavery in Carolina, but it did not envision the emergence of a slave society (i.e., one in which the society is largely structured around an enslaved labor force). Colonists from Barbados brought slave society with them, and as they gained political power in Carolina they altered the social hierarchy and eliminated the ideal of reciprocity of benefits among social classes. A new model emerged that blended idealistic elements of the Grand Model with the existing model of Barbadian slave society. That model would become a template for development across the Deep South.

This chapter examines the Grand Model for the Province of Carolina. The term “Grand Model” was sometimes used to refer to the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina. At other times the term was used ...
More

This chapter examines the Grand Model for the Province of Carolina. The term “Grand Model” was sometimes used to refer to the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina. At other times the term was used to refer specifically to the settlement plan for the colony, including detailed urban design specifications. In this chapter, the Grand Model is used to mean the Fundamental Constitutions taken together with the detailed implementing “instructions” written mostly by Locke. Special attention is given to the social hierarchy prescribed for the colony and the spatial planning associated with that idealized Gothic social model. The overall design was an attempt to create a just and stable society within a traditional social framework, and it may have led Locke to make the later, paradigm-shifting leap to new perspectives that would soon characterize the Enlightenment.Less

The Carolina Grand Model

Thomas D. Wilson

Published in print: 2016-03-01

This chapter examines the Grand Model for the Province of Carolina. The term “Grand Model” was sometimes used to refer to the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina. At other times the term was used to refer specifically to the settlement plan for the colony, including detailed urban design specifications. In this chapter, the Grand Model is used to mean the Fundamental Constitutions taken together with the detailed implementing “instructions” written mostly by Locke. Special attention is given to the social hierarchy prescribed for the colony and the spatial planning associated with that idealized Gothic social model. The overall design was an attempt to create a just and stable society within a traditional social framework, and it may have led Locke to make the later, paradigm-shifting leap to new perspectives that would soon characterize the Enlightenment.

This chapter examines the intersection of urban planning and political culture. Traditionalistic political culture, with its roots in Carolina, was influenced in its development by decentralized, ...
More

This chapter examines the intersection of urban planning and political culture. Traditionalistic political culture, with its roots in Carolina, was influenced in its development by decentralized, rural settlement patterns. Resistance to urbanization and the persistence of an urban/rural divide in American politics are by-products of conflicts among political cultures. The new politics of the Tea Party and far-right conservatism opposes many urban planning initiatives as inconsistent with “first principles” on which the nation was founded. The principles of “sustainable development,” in particular, are challenged by traditionalistic political culture. However, modern principles of “sustainable development” are shown to have emerged early in the nation’s history and were part of Locke’s settlement plan for Carolina.Less

The Grand Model and the American City

Thomas D. Wilson

Published in print: 2016-03-01

This chapter examines the intersection of urban planning and political culture. Traditionalistic political culture, with its roots in Carolina, was influenced in its development by decentralized, rural settlement patterns. Resistance to urbanization and the persistence of an urban/rural divide in American politics are by-products of conflicts among political cultures. The new politics of the Tea Party and far-right conservatism opposes many urban planning initiatives as inconsistent with “first principles” on which the nation was founded. The principles of “sustainable development,” in particular, are challenged by traditionalistic political culture. However, modern principles of “sustainable development” are shown to have emerged early in the nation’s history and were part of Locke’s settlement plan for Carolina.

This book demonstrates that early utopian visions for England’s American colonies had a lasting impact. Those early plans not only influenced the future form of American cities, but they shaped the ...
More

This book demonstrates that early utopian visions for England’s American colonies had a lasting impact. Those early plans not only influenced the future form of American cities, but they shaped the American political landscape as well. Anthony Ashley Cooper, the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, was one of the most powerful politicians in England when he and seven other noblemen founded the Province of Carolina. At an early stage in planning the colony, Ashley Cooper enlisted the assistance of John Locke in preparing its constitution, settlement strategy, and urban-regional design guidelines. Together they left an indelible imprint on the colony and America. Combined with other influences, notably Caribbean slave society, Carolina went on to influence the development of southern political culture. That unique political culture is rooted in ancient hierarchical traditions that stand in sharp contrast to America’s Enlightenment tradition (ironically also shaped in part by the later Locke). The book concludes with an appeal to urbanists, environmentalists, scientists, and others grounded in the Enlightenment paradigms of equality and reason to understand the powerful attraction of pre-Enlightenment political culture. Doing so, the book argues, requires understanding America’s utopian colonial origins.Less

The Ashley Cooper Plan : The Founding of Carolina and the Origins of Southern Political Culture

Thomas D. Wilson

Published in print: 2016-03-01

This book demonstrates that early utopian visions for England’s American colonies had a lasting impact. Those early plans not only influenced the future form of American cities, but they shaped the American political landscape as well. Anthony Ashley Cooper, the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, was one of the most powerful politicians in England when he and seven other noblemen founded the Province of Carolina. At an early stage in planning the colony, Ashley Cooper enlisted the assistance of John Locke in preparing its constitution, settlement strategy, and urban-regional design guidelines. Together they left an indelible imprint on the colony and America. Combined with other influences, notably Caribbean slave society, Carolina went on to influence the development of southern political culture. That unique political culture is rooted in ancient hierarchical traditions that stand in sharp contrast to America’s Enlightenment tradition (ironically also shaped in part by the later Locke). The book concludes with an appeal to urbanists, environmentalists, scientists, and others grounded in the Enlightenment paradigms of equality and reason to understand the powerful attraction of pre-Enlightenment political culture. Doing so, the book argues, requires understanding America’s utopian colonial origins.

This chapter argues that the social and economic template that emerged in South Carolina in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries evolved into a distinct political culture that spread ...
More

This chapter argues that the social and economic template that emerged in South Carolina in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries evolved into a distinct political culture that spread across the Deep South. The template was one in which white aristocracy governed on a principle of white supremacy that equated African or African-American labor to property that was to be acquired in unlimited quantity. It differed from Virginia political culture, which sought to limit and disperse its slave population and was less committed to creating an “empire of slavery.” The “traditionalistic” political culture of the South described by the political scientist Daniel Elazar and others was significantly shaped by Carolina influences. That political culture exists today as one of three primary political cultures in the United States.Less

The Grand Model and the Genesis of Southern Political Culture

Thomas D. Wilson

Published in print: 2016-03-01

This chapter argues that the social and economic template that emerged in South Carolina in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries evolved into a distinct political culture that spread across the Deep South. The template was one in which white aristocracy governed on a principle of white supremacy that equated African or African-American labor to property that was to be acquired in unlimited quantity. It differed from Virginia political culture, which sought to limit and disperse its slave population and was less committed to creating an “empire of slavery.” The “traditionalistic” political culture of the South described by the political scientist Daniel Elazar and others was significantly shaped by Carolina influences. That political culture exists today as one of three primary political cultures in the United States.

This chapter consists of an overview of the work of the three British philosophers from the first half of the eighteenth century whose work most influenced the later sentimentalists: Francis ...
More

This chapter consists of an overview of the work of the three British philosophers from the first half of the eighteenth century whose work most influenced the later sentimentalists: Francis Hutcheson, Bishop Joseph Butler, and Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Although all three made important contributions to the argument that justice and virtue cannot be products of reason alone, this chapter considers these authors primarily insofar as they presented the problems which Hume, Smith, and Herder were left to work out in their own writings. The first of these challenges was the need for a free-standing sentimentalist ethics—that is, one which does not rely on religion or metaphysics to establish the normative authority of our moral sentiments. The second challenge is to explain how our moral sentiments can lead us to a sense of justice capable of being instantiated in law-governed political institutions.Less

Sentimentalism before Hume

Michael L. Frazer

Published in print: 2010-06-30

This chapter consists of an overview of the work of the three British philosophers from the first half of the eighteenth century whose work most influenced the later sentimentalists: Francis Hutcheson, Bishop Joseph Butler, and Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Although all three made important contributions to the argument that justice and virtue cannot be products of reason alone, this chapter considers these authors primarily insofar as they presented the problems which Hume, Smith, and Herder were left to work out in their own writings. The first of these challenges was the need for a free-standing sentimentalist ethics—that is, one which does not rely on religion or metaphysics to establish the normative authority of our moral sentiments. The second challenge is to explain how our moral sentiments can lead us to a sense of justice capable of being instantiated in law-governed political institutions.

This chapter amplifies the account of the ‘novelization’ of literary culture. It begins by defining ‘the polite’ and considering the ideological work that its various manifestations were required to ...
More

This chapter amplifies the account of the ‘novelization’ of literary culture. It begins by defining ‘the polite’ and considering the ideological work that its various manifestations were required to perform. Professional writers like Peter Motteux, John Oldmixon, and John Dunton played a part in the shaping of polite discourse, even if their motives were those of commerce and profit, and even if they themselves would hardly make membership of the middle class. Others contributed to its formation from a position relatively external to it, like Pope and Swift, or entirely external to it: in the case of John Dennis, implacably hostile to it. And perhaps the single most important negotiator of the polite was Anthony Ashley Cooper, third Earl of Shaftesbury, whose class vantage-point was many miles above it. Addison and Steele were central to its formation, as would be generally agreed. It is argued that they were so because together they had the range of experience and breadth of attitude necessary to meld widely disparate cultural elements into a witty, tolerant, moderate, and highly marketable literary product.Less

Conversing with Pictures: The Periodical and the Polite

Brean S. Hammond

Published in print: 1997-03-06

This chapter amplifies the account of the ‘novelization’ of literary culture. It begins by defining ‘the polite’ and considering the ideological work that its various manifestations were required to perform. Professional writers like Peter Motteux, John Oldmixon, and John Dunton played a part in the shaping of polite discourse, even if their motives were those of commerce and profit, and even if they themselves would hardly make membership of the middle class. Others contributed to its formation from a position relatively external to it, like Pope and Swift, or entirely external to it: in the case of John Dennis, implacably hostile to it. And perhaps the single most important negotiator of the polite was Anthony Ashley Cooper, third Earl of Shaftesbury, whose class vantage-point was many miles above it. Addison and Steele were central to its formation, as would be generally agreed. It is argued that they were so because together they had the range of experience and breadth of attitude necessary to meld widely disparate cultural elements into a witty, tolerant, moderate, and highly marketable literary product.

This chapter offers an analysis of conceptual differences among political cultures rooted in colonial history related to urban design, environmental planning, climate science and other fields where ...
More

This chapter offers an analysis of conceptual differences among political cultures rooted in colonial history related to urban design, environmental planning, climate science and other fields where differences are particularly acute. It offers prescriptions for improved communication based in part on mutual appreciation of American history and what constitutes “first principles” and common traditions. It concludes that an American planning tradition emerged with the plan for Carolina developed by Ashley Cooper and Locke.Less

Epilogue : Political Culture and the Future of the City

Thomas D. Wilson

Published in print: 2016-03-01

This chapter offers an analysis of conceptual differences among political cultures rooted in colonial history related to urban design, environmental planning, climate science and other fields where differences are particularly acute. It offers prescriptions for improved communication based in part on mutual appreciation of American history and what constitutes “first principles” and common traditions. It concludes that an American planning tradition emerged with the plan for Carolina developed by Ashley Cooper and Locke.

This chapter considers the seventeenth-century reception of Thomas Hobbes, and in particular the question of how he was understood as being both a funny (and dangerous) kind of Stoic and later as a ...
More

This chapter considers the seventeenth-century reception of Thomas Hobbes, and in particular the question of how he was understood as being both a funny (and dangerous) kind of Stoic and later as a funny (and dangerous) kind of Epicurean. It discusses how Hobbes came to be characterized as an Epicurean and how his critics responded to the political theory he had presented in Leviathan — particularly his arguments on natural law. The chapter focuses in particular on Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, whose philosophical sympathies led him to become an opponent of Hobbes and a supporter of the latitude-men or latitudinarians and their particular engagements with Stoicism.Less

From Hobbes to Shaftesbury

Christopher Brooke

Published in print: 2012-04-08

This chapter considers the seventeenth-century reception of Thomas Hobbes, and in particular the question of how he was understood as being both a funny (and dangerous) kind of Stoic and later as a funny (and dangerous) kind of Epicurean. It discusses how Hobbes came to be characterized as an Epicurean and how his critics responded to the political theory he had presented in Leviathan — particularly his arguments on natural law. The chapter focuses in particular on Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, whose philosophical sympathies led him to become an opponent of Hobbes and a supporter of the latitude-men or latitudinarians and their particular engagements with Stoicism.

This chapter examines David Hume's science of man as yielding a science of human sociability, placing his writings in opposition to Thomas Hobbes's theory of human nature and his supervening science ...
More

This chapter examines David Hume's science of man as yielding a science of human sociability, placing his writings in opposition to Thomas Hobbes's theory of human nature and his supervening science of politics. It first considers Hobbes's theory of human nature, which he articulates in his 1642 De Cive, and his arguments about pride, as well as his depiction of humans' natural unsociability in Leviathan. It then discusses the views of Anthony Ashley Cooper, third Earl of Shaftesbury, who rejected Hobbes's vision of human sociability, and Bernard Mandeville's claim that human beings were primarily driven by pride. It also analyzes Hume's theory of sociability, showing that it is tripartite in nature: sympathy and imagination must undergird and then supplement utility, even if utility remains the central factor. Finally, it looks at Hume's views on justice and government.Less

Sociability

Paul Sagar

Published in print: 2018-02-13

This chapter examines David Hume's science of man as yielding a science of human sociability, placing his writings in opposition to Thomas Hobbes's theory of human nature and his supervening science of politics. It first considers Hobbes's theory of human nature, which he articulates in his 1642 De Cive, and his arguments about pride, as well as his depiction of humans' natural unsociability in Leviathan. It then discusses the views of Anthony Ashley Cooper, third Earl of Shaftesbury, who rejected Hobbes's vision of human sociability, and Bernard Mandeville's claim that human beings were primarily driven by pride. It also analyzes Hume's theory of sociability, showing that it is tripartite in nature: sympathy and imagination must undergird and then supplement utility, even if utility remains the central factor. Finally, it looks at Hume's views on justice and government.

This chapter focuses on Anthony Ashley Cooper, third Earl of Shaftesbury. It recovers the interpretative importance of Shaftesbury’s profound classicism—in particular, his admiration for the ancient ...
More

This chapter focuses on Anthony Ashley Cooper, third Earl of Shaftesbury. It recovers the interpretative importance of Shaftesbury’s profound classicism—in particular, his admiration for the ancient Stoic moral philosophers—for an understanding of his philosophical objectives, and it challenges the general tendency of recent scholarship to marginalize or ignore the substantive content of that philosophy. It argues that Shaftesbury’s classicism finds its most important context, and his vindication of Stoicism and contempt for the moral teachings of Christianity its contemporary significance, in Locke’s distinctive treatment of classical moral philosophy. Precisely because scholars have paid scant attention to the latter, they have failed to comprehend the novelty and importance of the former. Shaftesbury’s admiration for Stoicism also informed his highly distinctive narrative of the history of philosophy, which emphasized how Christianity had misappropriated ancient moral philosophy for its own (worldly) purposes.Less

Shaftesbury’s Science of Happiness

Tim Stuart-Buttle

Published in print: 2019-06-27

This chapter focuses on Anthony Ashley Cooper, third Earl of Shaftesbury. It recovers the interpretative importance of Shaftesbury’s profound classicism—in particular, his admiration for the ancient Stoic moral philosophers—for an understanding of his philosophical objectives, and it challenges the general tendency of recent scholarship to marginalize or ignore the substantive content of that philosophy. It argues that Shaftesbury’s classicism finds its most important context, and his vindication of Stoicism and contempt for the moral teachings of Christianity its contemporary significance, in Locke’s distinctive treatment of classical moral philosophy. Precisely because scholars have paid scant attention to the latter, they have failed to comprehend the novelty and importance of the former. Shaftesbury’s admiration for Stoicism also informed his highly distinctive narrative of the history of philosophy, which emphasized how Christianity had misappropriated ancient moral philosophy for its own (worldly) purposes.

This chapter examines why Giambattista Vico deleted the Novella letteraria with which he planned to begin the New Science and replaced its pages with the dipintura he commissioned and an explanation ...
More

This chapter examines why Giambattista Vico deleted the Novella letteraria with which he planned to begin the New Science and replaced its pages with the dipintura he commissioned and an explanation of it. It suggests that the answer involves both Thomas Hobbes and Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury. Vico may have intended the central figure of his frontispiece, Dame Metaphysic, to stand in opposition and represent the purest values of the spirit. Hobbes’s frontispiece in Leviathan (1651) combines within it the device of the impresa by placing above the head of his figure the line from the book of Job in the Latin Vulgate, warning that there is no power greater on the earth than Leviathan. This chapter considers what Vico thought of his frontispiece compared to that of Hobbes. It also discusses Shaftesbury’s Second Characters and Francis Bacon’s conception of the art of memory. Finally, it explores what Vico means by this analogy of the New Science with the anonymously written Tablet of Cebes.Less

Genesis of the Frontispiece

Donald Phillip Verene

Published in print: 2015-12-14

This chapter examines why Giambattista Vico deleted the Novella letteraria with which he planned to begin the New Science and replaced its pages with the dipintura he commissioned and an explanation of it. It suggests that the answer involves both Thomas Hobbes and Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury. Vico may have intended the central figure of his frontispiece, Dame Metaphysic, to stand in opposition and represent the purest values of the spirit. Hobbes’s frontispiece in Leviathan (1651) combines within it the device of the impresa by placing above the head of his figure the line from the book of Job in the Latin Vulgate, warning that there is no power greater on the earth than Leviathan. This chapter considers what Vico thought of his frontispiece compared to that of Hobbes. It also discusses Shaftesbury’s Second Characters and Francis Bacon’s conception of the art of memory. Finally, it explores what Vico means by this analogy of the New Science with the anonymously written Tablet of Cebes.

The eighteenth-century aesthetic theories of Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, and Francis Hutcheson use scientific tropes, consequently revealing the reciprocity of scientific and ...
More

The eighteenth-century aesthetic theories of Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, and Francis Hutcheson use scientific tropes, consequently revealing the reciprocity of scientific and literary epistemologies. Poets use an expressly aesthetic mode to imagine beyond the limits of experimental knowledge, even though eighteenth-century aesthetics takes shape through unacknowledged appropriation of scientific structures and processes. With this reciprocity obscured, natural philosophy may well disclose sights unseen, but poetry does more. In Alexander Pope’s The Rape of the Lock, poems inspired by Queen Caroline’s homage to British theological and scientific accomplishments in her Richmond Hermitage, and James Thomson’s The Seasons, science becomes literature: aesthetic mediations of natural philosophy draw on but also challenge the intellectual work of science, and mount a case for the epistemological superiority of the literary.Less

When Science Becomes Literature

Tita Chico

Published in print: 2018-06-05

The eighteenth-century aesthetic theories of Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, and Francis Hutcheson use scientific tropes, consequently revealing the reciprocity of scientific and literary epistemologies. Poets use an expressly aesthetic mode to imagine beyond the limits of experimental knowledge, even though eighteenth-century aesthetics takes shape through unacknowledged appropriation of scientific structures and processes. With this reciprocity obscured, natural philosophy may well disclose sights unseen, but poetry does more. In Alexander Pope’s The Rape of the Lock, poems inspired by Queen Caroline’s homage to British theological and scientific accomplishments in her Richmond Hermitage, and James Thomson’s The Seasons, science becomes literature: aesthetic mediations of natural philosophy draw on but also challenge the intellectual work of science, and mount a case for the epistemological superiority of the literary.

This chapter examines the notion of disinterested interest and relates it to the human animal's lack of instinct. The conceptualization of our ability to take a disinterested interest, which shows ...
More

This chapter examines the notion of disinterested interest and relates it to the human animal's lack of instinct. The conceptualization of our ability to take a disinterested interest, which shows itself in calmly contemplating an object of beauty or admiring even an adversary's noble action, first emerges in the moral philosophy directed against a Hobbesian concept of human nature. This chapter explores how the capacity for contemplation came to be considered a distinctly human faculty by focusing on the views of Anthony Ashley-Cooper, the third Earl of Shaftesbury, about “disinterestedness” and how the capacity for taking a “disinterested interest” situates man with regard to other animals. More specifically, it situates the reception of Shaftesbury's concept of “disinterested interest” in the context of the conceptual history of “instinct” during the eighteenth century. It also discusses Shaftesbury's theory of moral sentiment and concludes by analyzing the difference between the instinct-driven interests of animal behavior and the relative weakness of instinctual guidance in the case of the human animal.Less

Disinterested Interest : The Human Animal’s Lack of Instinct

Dorothea E. von Mücke

Published in print: 2015-06-02

This chapter examines the notion of disinterested interest and relates it to the human animal's lack of instinct. The conceptualization of our ability to take a disinterested interest, which shows itself in calmly contemplating an object of beauty or admiring even an adversary's noble action, first emerges in the moral philosophy directed against a Hobbesian concept of human nature. This chapter explores how the capacity for contemplation came to be considered a distinctly human faculty by focusing on the views of Anthony Ashley-Cooper, the third Earl of Shaftesbury, about “disinterestedness” and how the capacity for taking a “disinterested interest” situates man with regard to other animals. More specifically, it situates the reception of Shaftesbury's concept of “disinterested interest” in the context of the conceptual history of “instinct” during the eighteenth century. It also discusses Shaftesbury's theory of moral sentiment and concludes by analyzing the difference between the instinct-driven interests of animal behavior and the relative weakness of instinctual guidance in the case of the human animal.

This chapter views a series of philosophical exchanges in the eighteenth century, which showcases the back and forth between plausibly Stoic and Epicurean concerns and arguments. It first takes a ...
More

This chapter views a series of philosophical exchanges in the eighteenth century, which showcases the back and forth between plausibly Stoic and Epicurean concerns and arguments. It first takes a look at François de Salignac de la Mothe-Fénelon, the major opponent from within French Catholicism of the Augustinian tendency towards Epicureanism, before turning to Bernard Mandeville's critique of Shaftesbury. The chapter also studies the moral philosophies of Joseph Butler and Francis Hutcheson, both of whom directed their arguments against Mandeville and in defence of Shaftesbury. In addition, the chapter discusses a persuasive interpretation of David Hume as a somewhat Epicurean and certainly anti-Stoic moral theorist.Less

From Fénelon to Hume

Christopher Brooke

Published in print: 2012-04-08

This chapter views a series of philosophical exchanges in the eighteenth century, which showcases the back and forth between plausibly Stoic and Epicurean concerns and arguments. It first takes a look at François de Salignac de la Mothe-Fénelon, the major opponent from within French Catholicism of the Augustinian tendency towards Epicureanism, before turning to Bernard Mandeville's critique of Shaftesbury. The chapter also studies the moral philosophies of Joseph Butler and Francis Hutcheson, both of whom directed their arguments against Mandeville and in defence of Shaftesbury. In addition, the chapter discusses a persuasive interpretation of David Hume as a somewhat Epicurean and certainly anti-Stoic moral theorist.

This chapter examines the role of history and the family in debates over human sociability and the foundations of politics, drawing attention to how David Hume was able to revolutionize the use of ...
More

This chapter examines the role of history and the family in debates over human sociability and the foundations of politics, drawing attention to how David Hume was able to revolutionize the use of state-of-nature conjectures in order to elucidate the emergence of institutional structures and related moral values. According to Thomas Hobbes, human psychology was fundamentally characterized by the balancing of appetites and aversions: all motivation could be explained in terms of the seeking of private pleasure and the avoidance of private pain. Bernard Mandeville essentially followed Hobbes, refusing to give any role to fellow feeling in explaining human sociability. The chapter first considers Hume's rejection of Hobbes's and Mandeville's reductive accounts of human psychology before discussing Hobbes's views on the question of the family and his notion of the state of nature. It also analyzes the debate involving Hobbes's British successors, namely: Mandeville, Anthony Ashley Cooper, and Francis Hutcheson.Less

History and the Family

Paul Sagar

Published in print: 2018-02-13

This chapter examines the role of history and the family in debates over human sociability and the foundations of politics, drawing attention to how David Hume was able to revolutionize the use of state-of-nature conjectures in order to elucidate the emergence of institutional structures and related moral values. According to Thomas Hobbes, human psychology was fundamentally characterized by the balancing of appetites and aversions: all motivation could be explained in terms of the seeking of private pleasure and the avoidance of private pain. Bernard Mandeville essentially followed Hobbes, refusing to give any role to fellow feeling in explaining human sociability. The chapter first considers Hume's rejection of Hobbes's and Mandeville's reductive accounts of human psychology before discussing Hobbes's views on the question of the family and his notion of the state of nature. It also analyzes the debate involving Hobbes's British successors, namely: Mandeville, Anthony Ashley Cooper, and Francis Hutcheson.

This chapter introduces the key themes and questions to be explored in the work. In particular, it discusses the tendency of much recent scholarship on early-modern philosophy to emphasize the ...
More

This chapter introduces the key themes and questions to be explored in the work. In particular, it discusses the tendency of much recent scholarship on early-modern philosophy to emphasize the importance of two late Hellenistic philosophical traditions: the Stoic and the Epicurean. It indicates that three important British writers—John Locke, Conyers Middleton, and David Hume—deliberately and explicitly aligned their approaches with Cicero, as the representative of an alternative philosophical tradition: academic scepticism. This, they argued, offered the conceptual resources more satisfactorily to address a question that contemporaries recognized to be particularly pressing: the relationship between moral theology and moral philosophy. It further yielded highly distinctive narratives of the historical relationship between classical moral philosophy and the Christian moral theology which had appropriated and displaced it. These narratives were in turn challenged by Shaftesbury and Mandeville, who placed themselves (respectively) within the Stoic and Epicurean traditions.Less

Introduction

Tim Stuart-Buttle

Published in print: 2019-06-27

This chapter introduces the key themes and questions to be explored in the work. In particular, it discusses the tendency of much recent scholarship on early-modern philosophy to emphasize the importance of two late Hellenistic philosophical traditions: the Stoic and the Epicurean. It indicates that three important British writers—John Locke, Conyers Middleton, and David Hume—deliberately and explicitly aligned their approaches with Cicero, as the representative of an alternative philosophical tradition: academic scepticism. This, they argued, offered the conceptual resources more satisfactorily to address a question that contemporaries recognized to be particularly pressing: the relationship between moral theology and moral philosophy. It further yielded highly distinctive narratives of the historical relationship between classical moral philosophy and the Christian moral theology which had appropriated and displaced it. These narratives were in turn challenged by Shaftesbury and Mandeville, who placed themselves (respectively) within the Stoic and Epicurean traditions.

For Marvell sovereignty names the brutal core of political order, where a single ruler, or body of rulers, decides on the state of exception. This recognition is visible in the early, middle, and ...
More

For Marvell sovereignty names the brutal core of political order, where a single ruler, or body of rulers, decides on the state of exception. This recognition is visible in the early, middle, and late stages of his career, from ThePicture of Little T.C. and the Villiers elegy, to the Protectorate poems, to the Advice to a Painter poems and AnAccount of the Growth of Popery. The last of these is illumined by consideration of the case of Shirley v. Fagg (1675); for all that Marvell aligned himself with Shaftesbury, they take different views of the case reflecting their different views of constitutional order. In his mature thought especially, we see Marvell’s impulse to advance the legal rights of the subject and so limit the damage that can be done by the sovereign wielding the power of the sword. This impulse is brought into conversation with Schmitt’s thought on the nature of the pluralist state, which he offers through a critique of Harold Laksi.Less

Marvell’s Dread of the Sword

Feisal G. Mohamed

Published in print: 2020-02-06

For Marvell sovereignty names the brutal core of political order, where a single ruler, or body of rulers, decides on the state of exception. This recognition is visible in the early, middle, and late stages of his career, from ThePicture of Little T.C. and the Villiers elegy, to the Protectorate poems, to the Advice to a Painter poems and AnAccount of the Growth of Popery. The last of these is illumined by consideration of the case of Shirley v. Fagg (1675); for all that Marvell aligned himself with Shaftesbury, they take different views of the case reflecting their different views of constitutional order. In his mature thought especially, we see Marvell’s impulse to advance the legal rights of the subject and so limit the damage that can be done by the sovereign wielding the power of the sword. This impulse is brought into conversation with Schmitt’s thought on the nature of the pluralist state, which he offers through a critique of Harold Laksi.